Over the weekend, I started doing some thinking about prescriptions. It occurred to me that prior to these wonderful creations, many people would have had early-onset non-treatable health problems. Now many, if not most, of these people will live normal life spans.

Additionally, many people living longer due to modern medicine will spend small fortunes (either directly or through health plans) on prescriptions for years. That is why I think pharmaceutical companies will be great investments for years to come. I am thinking of increasing my holdings in Merck and possibly buying some Pfizer, since pharmaceuticals is a key sector in which our portfolio is underweighted. I will also look at the Vanguard Healthcare Fund.

IMHO, our politicians have it backwards. The drug companies are offering millions of people a new lease on life. They should be praised, not villified. In fact, one might say that drug companies operate in the best interests of the general public-which is more than I can say for some of our self-righteous politicians.

IMHO, our politicians have it backwards. The drug companies are offering millions of people a new lease on life. They should be praised, not villified. In fact, one might say that drug companies operate in the best interests of the general public-which is more than I can say for some of our self-righteous politicians.

I agree with you. The politicians don't give a rat's a$$ about the best interests of the general public. Their interest is votes and the wealth, power and influence those votes translate into. The general difference between our two brands of politicians is that brand D sets unwitting people against unpopular people and unpopular industries in order to make the people more dependent on the brand D politicians and brand R defends against this in order to make the unpopular people and industries more dependent on the brand R politicians.

"I agree with you. The politicians don't give a rat's a$$ about the best interests of the general public. Their interest is votes and the wealth, power and influence those votes translate into. The general difference between our two brands of politicians is that brand D sets unwitting people against unpopular people and unpopular industries in order to make the people more dependent on the brand D politicians and brand R defends against this in order to make the unpopular people and industries more dependent on the brand R politicians."

Excellent point, 1HF. If the general public were to take a step back and think about who REALLY operates in its best interests, it might be really surprised (Hint: Politicians are NOT one of the answers).

The "Attack of the Killer Politicians" has been experienced by the following industries at some time or other:

Not surprisingly, virtually every stock I own falls into one of the above categories. I guess I must be doing something wrong, too. Perhaps I should not be looking for "recession proof" companies, but rather "politician proof" companies.<grin>

The drug companies are offering millions of people a new lease on life. They should be praised, not vilified.

Never happen.

All the rabble have that is worth taking is their votes.

The rich and the productive have all sorts of stuff worth taking.

Therefore when a man makes millions by extending the lives of his countrymen, at $1 per person/year, demand that he "give something back to the community" - meaning you the politician - and the rabble will back you. THIS is the path to political power.

Never, ever, permit anyone to think "extending lives at $1 per person per year is ALREADY giving to the community more than any thousand politicians in history!"

I know this isn't the "pharmaceutical board", but I'm expecting Barr Laboratories to be a great investment with a 5-10 year horizon. However, my money isn't where my mouth is quite yet. If you are interested, here is a thread I started regarding my take on Barr Labs:

<<Additionally, many people living longer due to modern medicine will spend small fortunes (either directly or through health plans) on prescriptions for years. That is why I think pharmaceutical companies will be great investments for years to come. I am thinking of increasing my holdings in Merck and possibly buying some Pfizer, since pharmaceuticals is a key sector in which our portfolio is underweighted. I will also look at the Vanguard Healthcare Fund. >>

Any particular reasons why you favor Merck and Pfizer? I'd consider adding a couple of drug companies to my DRIP list, and I'd be glad to hear recommendations on why particular companies might be good choices from anyone with a bright idea.

Admittedly drug companies are reasonable investments. As a healthcare worker, I have ethical problems with them though. I know the business intimately, working with and having social relationships with many insiders. The amount of money spent on research is miniscule compared to the amount on marketing. Recently, the disgraceful practice of direct marketing to patients has reared its ugly head. I dont really appreaciate these ads during dinner. I think what is more problematic, is the fact that doctors, whether they admit it or not, are influenced tremendously by physician marketing and patient marketing. So what, you might ask? Consider the fact that all these "wonderful medications" are really only the ones that make money. No effort is made to produce medicines that may help people if they dont make money. Patents and royalties are where its at, and all those costs get passed on to poor frail Aunt Millie who can barely afford chicken soup. So the next time you see a 1,000,000 ad campaign on T.V. for a drug, ask yourself how much less that drug what have cost without all the marketing, letting doctors make prescription choices (a seemilingly novel concept in this day and age). By the way, I think there are plenty of good investments out there besides tobacco and drugs.

Recently, the disgraceful practice of direct marketing to patients has reared its ugly head. I dont really appreaciate these ads during dinner.

My family has a simple solution to ads during dinner.

We eat dinner.

We don't watch TV during dinner, or listen to the radio, or read the paper or the mail. We don't answer the phone (Please leave a message). If someone comes to the door, we either invite them in for dinner, or tell them to leave their literature and we will review it in December when we make our charitable and political contributions. We also don't use the internet or Quicken/Intuit (ads in my programs -- Grrr!) then either.

This works for us. Your Milage May Vary.

Vickifool -- actually, billboards are the most effective way to advertise to me.

The amount of money spent on research is miniscule compared to the amount on marketing. Recently, the disgraceful practice of direct marketing to patients has reared its ugly head. I dont really appreaciate these ads during dinner. I think what is more problematic, is the fact that doctors, whether they admit it or not, are influenced tremendously by physician marketing and patient marketing. So what, you might ask? Consider the fact that all these "wonderful medications" are really only the ones that make money.

The drugs that make the most money are the ones that don't cure. How much money is made fixing a broken leg or stopping an infection? High cholesterol, now there's a disease: no symptoms and you get to take liver-damaging drugs for 30 years. High blood pressure is a close second. Then there is depression; is everybody depressed? Is more money made on pills for depression or in trying to find causes? Did you know Prozac is indicated for people with hypochondria?

Best of all, the side effects from one drug can lead to the need to take a second drug, continue loop as needed.

What happens to profits if a substantial number of people decide they'd rather die at 80 than take $50 worth of drugs a day for 30 years so they can 'live' to be 90?

Therefore when a man makes millions by extending the lives of his countrymen, at $1 per person/year, demand that he "give something back to the community" - meaning you the politician - and the rabble will back you. THIS is the path to political power."

Once you get it, the way to maintain political power is to persuade others that rich and productive are always synonyms…

BTW, pharmaceutical companies are good investments--they tend to go up if the market is going down, and they go up even more if the market is going up. Stocks that I follow in that area include LLY, AMGN, MRK, PFE, SGP and AHP. Investing in pharms allows one to be on both sides of the fence as retirement happens. Stvfox

Any particular reasons why you favor Merck and Pfizer? I'd consider adding a couple of drug companies to my DRIP list, and I'd be glad to hear recommendations on why particular companies might be good choices from anyone with a bright idea.

FWIW, J&J is my largest pharma holding.

I'm more comfortable with them because of their broad market approach. Though they are most aggressively expanding their pharmaceuticals product lines, they are well based in century old consumer products as well.

In my mind, this is good to have in the event a few of the pipeline potentials dont pan out.

Golfwaymore,Who held J&J in one of his ports, before TMF said it was cool

Patents and royalties are where its at, and all those costs get passed on to poor frail Aunt Millie who can barely afford chicken soup

So the next time you see a 1,000,000 ad campaign on T.V. for a drug, ask yourself how much less that drug what have cost without all the marketing, letting doctors make prescription choices (a seemilingly novel concept in this day and age). By the way, I think there are plenty of good investments out there besides tobacco and drugs.

Right; and by that logic, if Winston would just pull out of NASCAR, think of how much cheaper they could sell cigarettes to Aunt Millie. Not to mention they'd sell fewer of them.

With all respect - it's called capitalism. Until someone comes along with a better mouse trap, companies will sell at a price that the market will bear.

To clear the confusion, pharmaceutical drugs and tobacco should not be seen as similar investments--it has been proven that tobacco increases cancer risk. Conversly, pharmaceutical drugs save and improve lives and decrease hospitalizations, ie they save money ultimately. You need not worry about Aunt Millie's finances if the US government ever decently provides prescription drugs which we pay for through taxes/social security, ie it is strange that Medicare does not cover medicine which is half of health care now. Stvfox

"So the next time you see a 1,000,000 ad campaign on T.V. for a drug, ask yourself how much less that drug what have cost without all the marketing, letting doctors make prescription choices (a seemilingly novel concept in this day and age). By the way, I think there are plenty of good investments out there besides tobacco and drugs.

Right; and by that logic, if Winston would just pull out of NASCAR, think of how much cheaper they could sell cigarettes to Aunt Millie. Not to mention they'd sell fewer of them.

With all respect - it's called capitalism. Until someone comes along with a better mouse trap, companies will sell at a price that the market will bear."

With all due respect, there is a slight difference between Nascar and physicians prescribing medications. Physicians learn the risks/benefits and detailed pharmacology of medications. Phsycians are licensed to prescribe medications. When companies market to patients they try to usurp the normal process by leveraging the patient against the physician. Do you want your doctor to prescribe the best medicine for you or the fancy, shiny one you saw on T.V.?